It’s not enough to appeal to the better angels of our nature. We need to have leaders of both parties — or Mr. Obama alone if necessary — declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds. We all want reconciliation, but the road to that goal begins with an agreement that our differences will be settled by the rule of law.

As Clarence Dupnik, the sheriff responsible for dealing with the Arizona shootings, put it, it’s “the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business.” The vast majority of those who listen to that toxic rhetoric stop short of actual violence, but some, inevitably, cross that line....

So will the Arizona massacre make our discourse less toxic? It’s really up to G.O.P. leaders. Will they accept the reality of what’s happening to America, and take a stand against eliminationist rhetoric? Or will they try to dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual, and go on as before?

Advocating violence is terrible, but it is also terrible to try to delegitimize vibrant criticism of the government, to have a biased view of where the least valuable speech is coming from, and to connect speech to violence when there is no connection. The truth is we should dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual and go on as before. Why should we change because a madman shot people?

Ironically, saying that a massacre can change the course of American politics encourages massacres! Why would you put such a thought into the heads of madmen? Hell, sane men might put the pieces together and plan a massacre to disrupt the work of the politicians who won the last elections. We need to turn away from the bloody slaughter and go on as before.

96 comments:

Snake oil was purported to cure every ill, from apoplexy and apostasy to vertigo and virginity. Obama is selling the snake itself, the idea that Americans can be taxed to wealth, regulated to health, their liberty administered by his millions of minions. None knows the line beyond which it will take too much effort to reverse this trend.Meanwhile, we're gently conditioned to focus on ills caused by the mentally ill. It's pointless to ponder the operational frequencies of nuts unless they're acorns.

Krugman is a sad case. Hopefully the NYT will put him out to pasture before he has his final meltdown.As to the mendacious calumny in the article, it's typical of his ilk. Whenever the Left does something stupid (or evil, in the case of the Palin attacks) and gets caught, they fall all over themselves saying "both sides are the same". Once they get that false premise laid, they explain how the conservatives are really much worse, and should take all the blame for whatever minor Hell the Left has just created.

Althouse - "but it is also terrible to try to delegitimize vibrant criticism of the government, to have a biased view of where the least valuable speech is coming from, and to connect speech to violence when there is no connection. The truth is we should dismiss the massacre as the mere act of a deranged individual and go on as before. Why should we change because a madman shot people?"

Ann can see it coming, and so should everyone else. This is the table being set by forces of the status quo to delegitimize "harsh criticism" of major issues that will have to be addressed in near-bankrupt states and well as in DC.We are on the verge of having to scale back entitlements, readjust government employee pensions and bennies, reconsider anchor babies and free school and med care for illegals. Seniors may see their "free drugs" pared back, automatic COLAs ended. States may have to do mass layoffs. The idea of a 60% jump in income and business taxes as Illinois has done, is unsustainable.

Military cutbacks have to be considered.

THis will be a time where people are screaming against having "their free stuff" taken away, others screaming they can't afford the taxes to pay for other peoples "good free stuff".

And discourse about energy policy, Obamacare.

And you KNOW that the opponents of any change will throw out the "shut up and go away, your angry rhetoric will only cause more massacres!" line.

And urge that the Tea Party and other "angry, hurtful haters" just disappear..

Krugman is a symptom of the downfall of the House of Sulzberger, as Pinch runs the family inheritance into the ground with phonies like Friedman, Dowd, and Rich all masquerading as pundits. Rich should go back to critiqueing theater shows and Krugman to his ivory jailcell at Princeton.

They all think they're Walter Lippmann, but they come off more like Eliot Spitzer...!

C4 paints a good picture, and as grim as it is, the reality might be worse: oil prices, basic commodity prices, home foreclosures, and record high first filing for unemployment. Major inflationary pressures. Our political class has its work cut out for it, and I genuinely doubt it is up to the task.

When we're done excoriating the media for its irresponsible blood libel, we should excoriate them some more for their habit of treating the nearest person with an impressive title (in this case Sheriff Dupnik) as though he were an expert on whatever issue the media wants to focus on.

I'm tired of hearing Dupnik's name in conjunction with opinions on topics there is no reason to believe he knows anything about.

And this isn't the first time the media has done this. As far as I can tell, it's SOP on big stories.

“If Krugman had a sharper, fairer eye for what is really needed, he would have walked back his last column…”

I’ve been trying, unsuccessfully, to convince my fellow righties on the web that Obama’s “It did not” – regarding the claim that rhetoric caused the Az. shootings – should be treated as a big deal. That, along with his “Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath…” was quite a rebuke of the Krugman types.

Sure, the prez then buried it under strong suggestions that, yes, rhetoric DID cause this and we need to tone it down, but we would be smart to unbury it and draw attention to it.

But no one seems to be talking about it. So, Krugman doesn’t have to walk back anything.

CJ, Obama effectively voided the "it did not" phrase by A: not including it in the actual text (the historical record) and B: having Gibbs dodge all questions asking for amplification/clarification. I'll measure Obama by the thousands of words he speaks and the actions of his legions of surrogates, not one carefully couched phrase.

Anybody that looks at this week and sees balance is unbalanced. The left have made complete asses of themselves and exposed that their support for free speech was just another tool to be used when convenient.

Have any of these twee ever so sensitive types ever read any of the yellow journalism from, oh, say 1898? Or how about the heated rhetoric from the American Revolutionary period? The name calling today pales in comparison leaving these mealy mouthed critics as either ignorant or shills.

"And it’s all right for them to say that. What’s not acceptable is the kind of violence and eliminationist rhetoric encouraging violence that has become all too common these past two years."

This is why this discussion has just become a bore. Krugman obviously ignored or was comatose during the 8 years of Bushitler, Death of a President, the left cheering the death of Tony Snow or wishing Cheney took Bush hunting. Krugman ignores a Dem congressman wishing a GOP governer be put against the wall and shot or Obama parroting a line from the Untouchables.

It would be so much easier to buy into Krugman's argument if Loughner had a Palin poster in his room with Beck and Coulter books strewn about but no evidence is available that he did so he's just making stuff up because like the rest of the MSM which invested so heavily into the narrative, now sees no alternative but to double down.

Again, contrast this with the Fort Hood massacre where we were told not to jump to any conclusions and that Major Hassan was a lone nutcase, nothing to see here. Islam had nothing, nothing at all to do with his rampage which left thirteen people dead. Faisal Shazad failed in his attempt at mass murder and the first assumption was he was a crazed tea partier mad about health care.

Sorry but the left squandered any integrity or credibility they had a long time ago.

What's hard to figure out about Krugman is his view of his audience. A NYT op-ed is, in part, a pulpit for preaching to the faithful, a place from which to encourage them to keep the faith. He does that all the time. I have the impression that the faithful love him; everyone else, not so much.

"Preaching" is also how he seems to see his mission -- explaining the lefty gospel, giving advice on what an authentic, righteous life looks like when transposed into public policy, etc. A piece in the New Rep today argues that a lot of the lefty chatter about the Tuscon shooting was purely a fact-free, faith-based narrative. That's Krugman's usual stance too. Krugman's column today adds a Manichean twist, dividing the world into the morally enlightened and the selfishly dimwitted.

It's a strikingly strange that today's most dedicated anti-religious secularists -- I think that's pretty much how academic social scientists see themselves -- offer themselves as a caricature of a 19th century Bible-thumper. When I read Krugman's stuff (admittedly, not that often), I keep hearing the voice of Fredric March playing Rev. Brady in Inherit the Wind.

I suspect that leaving it out of the written speech could just as likely have been a result of debate within the White House, and he added it late. In the 21st century, on such widely covered presidential remarks, the official written document means little.

Unless, of course, it isn’t noted in other venues. Which we seem to be ensuring is the case, for some reason. It was a major concession, one that revealed this week-long, twisted theater “The Tea Party is Killing People!” for what it was.

And I’m not “measuring Obama” or judging his speech in any way. I’m saying the entire American Left should be squirming that their Lord felt the need to distance himself from their major talking point. When that happens, on any issue, targets of the talking point need to draw attention to it. Or, stop demanding that the Krugmans retract or rethink anything.

This is much ado about nothing. The left is simply incapable of being civil. They CAN. NOT. DO. IT. The majority of Americans recognize this now and so, unless the right goes bat shit crazy on rhetoric, the left will lose this argument for civility.

Ah, someone gets it. (Probably plenty do, no doubt. Just not the sites I visit.)

Still waiting for Republican lawmakers to highlight it. Couching it, of course, in terms of commending the President for his courage to speak the truth. Because for now, no one seems to have missed a beat. The call for "civility" as a response goes on.(In large part because Obama’s concession was quick and lawyerly, and sandwiched between rhetoric which implied the opposite of what “It did not” meant.)

Senator CJ would say: “I commend the President for calling an end to finger-pointing, and for speaking a truth our friends on the left have refused to admit: political discourse did not prompt these horrible crimes.”

Then, wait for the blowback -- sorry, I mean, negative reaction – and talk about it some more. We’ll spend a few days talking about what “It did not” means, instead of what “blood libel” means. And we’ll all be the better for it.

On the other hand we do have one glaring example of a connection between the rhetoric of the right and violence in the case of Jim Adkisson, who thought he was doing something good for the country by killing Democrats and liberals. Rarely mentioned by the MSM, his was a reader of Savage, Hannity,and O'Reilly and has expressed little remorse for his murders. He is another example of the lone wolf, who is not crazy, but who in some way draws justification for his acts from these authors. But of course to point this out raises issues of free speech. But isn't it possible to raise issues without calling on Beck's imagery of Blood Baths, or the silly notion of a Marxist president run by Goldman Sacks? For examples of civility on opposite sides, compare the comments on the Tuscan shooting of Rush's with those of Olbermann's; one shows some reflection and compassion, the other not so much. One can tone it down and still make criticisms against policies.

"To be sure, America should embrace civil political discourse for its own sake, and no political faction should engage in demonizing rhetoric. But promoting this high principle by simultaneously violating it and engaging in a blood libel against innocent parties is both irresponsible and immoral."Rabbi Shumley Boteach

Immoral is the description I've been searching for the last few days to characterize Krugman and his ilk.

On the other hand we do have one glaring example of a connection between the rhetoric of the right and violence in the case of Jim Adkisson,

True. Unfortunately for the left, there isn't any evidence that Loughner was an avid fan of Palin, Beck, Limbaugh or any conservative. Sadly what you are doing is trying to connect one act of right wing violence to another completely unrelated act of violence. Rather than admit Loughner was a mentally unstable individual who seems to have held a grudge against Gifford since 2007 (before anyone heard of Palin), you instead play the partisan hack and continue to flog that it was 'conservative rhetoric' that caused it.

Perhaps he heard Congressman Kanjorski call for Rick Scott to be shot and took his inspiration from that? But I don't suppose you'd ever want to admit that do you?

But isn't it possible to raise issues without calling on Beck's imagery of Blood Baths, or the silly notion of a Marxist president run by Goldman Sacks?

That's a good question. I was asking the same thing several years ago saying that Bush wasn't an evil dictator who stole the election and was in the pockets of BIG OIL who ordered the destruction of the WTC so he could invade the Middle East to enrich Haliburton and Darth Cheney.

Seriosuly Roesch, were you asleep from 2000-2008 or are you just being deliberatly obtuse when you call for 'toning it down'?

Don't you folks understand that the "Eliminationist Rhetoric" being a problem is a Dan Rather moment. It is fake but it can be seen as a true example of our political attack meme. Get with the Great leader here. Bowing would also be a nice civil gesture, and it would be good practice in how to submit to Mohammed's deity at the same time

Where are the panels and articles discussing what should be done about people who are showing signs of schizophrenia or other psychoses? This is 1% of the population. It is a disease that usually begins in the teen years or young adulthood. It has life-long mental, emotional, physical, and social consequences. It is one of the worst diseases to have, considering the course and duration, but nobody is talking about it. Most people with schizophrenia aren't violent--in fact, often they are victims of others' violence. But there are many instances of an undiagnosed person commiting a crime, or a person going off of their medications and getting into trouble. Most people with schizophrenia are unhappy and live with fear caused by their delusions and hallucinations. Where are the schizophrenia awareness car magnets? Where are the 5K runs? Where are the telethons? This is a perfect opportunity to seriously address the inadequate laws, policies,funding, and public education dealing with schizophrenia, and all we get is blather about civility and attacks for political reasons. Dr. Helen, Dr. Sanity, Neo-Neocon, and others have talked about it, but very little has been on TV or the radio. Yes, Loughner was deranged. This wasn't the first time something like this has happened. It won't be the last. What are we going to do about it?

Ann's admonition to the Republicans is the core issue. The RINOs will once again reach across the aisle to their friends in the Democrat Party, the issue is whether the Libertarians, Conservatives, and Tea Partiers go with them.

Frankly, I can't see it. The new Era of Good Feeling isn't likely to survive the weekend, once the funerals for the dead are concluded. If anyone saw the panel on Hannity last night, the Lefties are already ramping up the rhetoric again.

PS Kudos to Meade. The pieces James Taranto has written this week are the most eloquent and effective rebuttal to the Left on the blogosphere and should be brought to the attention of as many people as possible.

The tweets are eliminationist rhetorical gold--Legal Insurrection captures the mind of one "redheadonfire2" who says sarah palin should be shot--and then wants her public tweet to taken down from Utube as it's a privacy violation--ah indeed: the liberal mind in operation is indeed a scary thing to behold.

"Most people with schizophrenia are unhappy and live with fear caused by their delusions and hallucinations. Where are the schizophrenia awareness car magnets? Where are the 5K runs? Where are the telethons? This is a perfect opportunity to seriously address the inadequate laws, policies,funding, and public education dealing with schizophrenia, and all we get is blather about civility and attacks for political reasons."

Please, the only disease that gets 5k runs is breast cancer. More women die of heart disease but it's all about the boobies.

As to schizophenia, and some other mental illnesses, the fact is the most dangerous of these poor folks should be in institutions because they simply cannot manage themselves and their families/friends can't really manage them either. But alas, that's not a liberal feel good answer to the problem, and we have them out on the streets - literally - either being violently abused or as in cases like Tuscon acting out in violence

Thomas Jefferson wrong about declaraing independence from Great Britian?

Was Paul Revere evil?

Violence, Ann, is the antidote to tyranny as your forefathers before you advocated it whenever any form of government becomes destructive to our ends.

It is the right of the people to alter or to abolish such a government, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

“It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Eric Fuller said in an interview with Democracy NOW.

“Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled — senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even 9-year-old girls,”

Sheriff Dupnik is much maligned;I even read a claim that his Dept.ignored warnings about Loughnerbecause L's mother was a stateemployee.

Step back from this, or any of theother thoughtful discussions of theissue, look for the underlying theme,and see the same fearful fact:Politicians, particularly Liberals,know that the Game is up, the Pipermust be paid, and the bill is goingon their personal tab; Damn rightthey are afraid of assassination.

Would AA hold ["Nigger!"] as a bannable offense if someone else does it?

Hell if I know, dude. There's a weird sense of "fair" in the professor class - it's not straight-forward like for the rest of us - and they're extremely thin-skinned, so you'd do better to ask a "credentialed but not educated" type than me.

I say speak your peace.

Seriously Roesch, were you asleep from 2000-2008 or are you just being deliberatly obtuse when you call for 'toning it down'?

That's the funny part: the fake "what are you so angry about?" bullshit, like the Bush years were spent with them planting flowers and working on their screenplays. The idea they were screaming bloody murder for almost 10 years straight - and we were watching them - that, they're totally oblivious to, now. And that any of us would take it personally is "offensive" to them - even though they were wrong about pretty much everything they were screaming about, and have now delivered worse on top of it.

I'm telling you, this is exactly what the hippies did to fathers in the '60s, to their (and their mother's) eternal shame.

Florida,

Violence, Ann, is the antidote to tyranny as your forefathers before you advocated it whenever any form of government becomes destructive to our ends.

Oh, why do you have to be so "negative"? Advocating violence. You must be filled with "fear",...

We will have a declaration of individualism containing all the truths we hold fit to print: the union of free and independent people is government, the whole government, and only the government and may not be opposed, but if it is inherently flawed, or contains contradictions, the properly credentialed judges will tell us so. The press has room to express concerns and find out facts for relating to the people, so long as they have the proper credentials as proof they really are the press, the members of which shall serve a life term at their pleasure; the press also maintains the freedom of association so as to eliminate from their ranks anyone who violates proper decorum or intention. There shall be no violence advised against the government or press, nor hurtful comments made.

I have often thought that the reason some leftists express horror at conservatives using violent rhetoric, is due to them projecting their own bigotry and hatred onto conservatives. They fear conservatives might actually have the balls to do some of the things that they (leftists) only fantasize about.

I am reminded of Maureen Dowd hearing in her mind the word "boy", during the Wilson incident where he said "You lie", and then projecting her own racist thoughts onto Tea Partiers. (Didn't we all hear "boy"? Uh, no Maureen. You own that.)

And Tom Friedman often shares his authoritarian fantasies, as he wistfully considers how wonderful it would be if only the Obama administration could be China for a day.

Krugman is just another one in the pantheon of NYT bigots, who lack self-awareness.

They really needn't worry, since the majority of conservatives are rational people, and not the monsters the left paints them to be. Tea Party conservatives expressed their discontent with ballots, not bullets. Conservatives need to start carrying mirrors to hold up to people like Krugman, when they go off about "haters".

I cannot help noticing that folks like Garbage Mahal, Ritmo, AlphaLibrul, and all their cohorts have NOTHING to say about the way the Tucson tragedy was politicized by the Left starting from Moron MarKos to that despicable excuse for a person that goes by the name of Paul Krugman.

Then again, I am not surprised."Civil dialogue" is as real as the Obama Unicorn and as someone pointed out the new code word for censorship and thought crime.